Re: FAQ/HTML standard?
От | Bruno Wolff III |
---|---|
Тема | Re: FAQ/HTML standard? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20050910220131.GA26169@wolff.to обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: FAQ/HTML standard? (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: FAQ/HTML standard?
Re: FAQ/HTML standard? Re: FAQ/HTML standard? |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 14:31:06 -0400, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote: > > > Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > >On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:10:19 -0400, > > Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote: > > > > > >>Is there an HTML standard that we try to follow in our HTML docs such as > >>FAQs? > >> > >>If there isn't an explicit standard, may I suggest that we adopt XHTML > >>1.0 as the standard? > >> > >> > > > >I ran accross an article a few weeks ago that suggested that this wasn't > >all that great of an idea. Using HTML 4.01 should be just as useful. > > > > > > > > I ran a cross a man in the street the other day who told me just the > opposite ;-) > > Seriously, if you to use an argument like this you need to cite the > article, or at the very least summarise its arguments. You didn't exactly give a good reason to back up your suggestion of using xhtml. I just wanted to alert people that there are contrary opinions and that someone may want to think about this before using the latest fad. > XHTML is simply a minimal reformulation of HTML in XML, and even uses > the HTML 4.01 definitions for its semantics. Given that, it's hard to > see why it should be considered a bad thing. Here is the article: http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml > > cheers > > andrew
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: